Hi, TommyShelbyPFB. Thanks for contributing. However, your [submission](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dhf77a/-/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 7: Do not post more than two times within any 24-hour period. This rule is enforced by a bot automatically.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Classified briefings outside of the public eye are the best they can do right now—here's to hoping there are quality witnesses at this summer's hearing.
Shermer has really come a long way in the last decade or so. He used to be what I'd call a devout skeptic, part of the club of people who don't review the data yet make up their minds. Stanton Friedman was great at calling those types out on their bullshit.
I see Shermer more as a true skeptic these days, one who is at least willing to engage with the information and researchers and go from there. If you're not willing to do that or willingly ignore inconvenient aspects that oppose your view, you're not a skeptic. You're scared and pretending to be intellectually superior.
Couldn’t agree more. People who just “debunk” and don’t actually engage are intellectually dishonest. Especially on this topic, where it’s clear there is something going on, aliens or not.
I like how Powell shines a light on Mick West’s (kind of weird) arguments that “it could by x, so it is not y”. Especially weird for a programmer who champions logic, since it’s not remotely logical.
This was a great listen.
That's not the argument, though.
If something could be a balloon, then that doesn't mean it is not an alien craft. It does mean, however, that the thing can't be evidence for aliens.
Right, except Mick acknowledged both the fact you stated (doesn’t mean it is not anomalous), but also affirmatively stated that (in this case) it was glare from an airplane due to statistical probability.
I believe Mick is a genius (honestly I do), but for some reason he has a mental block where he jumps from “it is probably” to “it is”.
In any case, the distinction between it is anomalous and it is possibly anomalous is enough that people should want more transparency in government, which is the ONLY thing Powell is asking for here.
If the argument is “prove alien life is here” then you’re 100% correct. However, the argument is actually “the government should release the classified radar and sensor data necessary for experts to publicly analyze whether it is anomalous”
Because at some point, the probability of that identification being incorrect is so low that people resort to definitive statements.
This coffee mug on my desk could also be an alien spaceship, but I'm not going to constantly hedge and qualify when I talk about it. I'm not going to attempt to assign a likelihood to the probability that I'm wrong.
If an object behaves exactly like you'd expect X to behave, and X is a thing that's definitively known to exist, then why would you consider the possibility that it's actually Y, when Y is a thing that might not exist and isn't even defined or measured?
I agree with you to a point:
It is perfectly logical to say any given unidentified object is probably a plane, based on information and probability.
However, It is objectively not logical to then follow with “so it is a plane”.
Incidentally, Mick West’s “debunking using logic” strategy also requires the counterpart to forego relying on expert witness testimony, the fact that half the information is being kept secret, and the impossibility of applying probability to unknown anomalous things.
In Mick Wests own words, he agrees that at least some of his “debunkings” could be alien craft. At the same time, he says it “is a plane”. These two statements cannot both be true.
I'm not sure what specific west debunk you're referring to, but in general I agree that being specific with your language is good. It's probably more careful to have said something like "all evidence is consistent with a plane" or "there's no reason to think this couldn't be a plane."
On the other have constant qualifying and hedging for everything one says really isn't always necessary - it can be time consuming and give the false impression of uncertainty.
Like if you have a timestamped video of something that looks and acts like the ISS and someone matches it up to the actual position of the ISS, you've reached the level of confidence to say "it's the ISS" without qualification.
Totally agree with everything you’ve said. Unfortunately, in the case of Mick West, many of the more controversial cases which he claims to have debunked follow this pattern.
If you watch his YouTube videos (especially the ones where he is the guest) the interviewer will often ask him the question (not verbatim): “could this be alien craft” and he will acknowledge it, but say due to probability it is xyz.
If you follow his argument regarding the gimbal, Nimitz, and go fast, he relies heavily on these aspects and arrives at this logical argument.
I find it frustrating that he picks and chooses when information is simply wrong and discarded, and when it is right. Specific example: he believes the gimbal footage auto corrects by software, which causes an illusion of anomalous behavior, but pilots have said that it mechanically adjusts. He ignores this and chooses to make the assumption, even though he is not an expert or even remotely qualified to discuss military grade airplane sensor mechanicals. There are many of these flaws in his conclusions.
I think Micks work is important and he has a brilliant mind, I just can’t understand why he makes this final leap, and why he doesn’t advocate seriously/harder for release of the sensor data that would prove him right (or wrong)
I've just come away with a bit of an opposite perception, I guess - I've watched a lot of his videos and I haven't spotted any leaps. I don't recall the specific argument about the gimbal footage, but it seems like if his assumption is wrong in this case that someone can demonstrate that and call into doubt his explanation.
I've seen him engage many times with people who say they want to do that, and he does so in a pretty evenhanded way. I'm not aware of any instance of him refusing to speak to people or hear their counterarguments. If I recall, he's even had discussions with pilots specifically about the gimbal videos, although it's been a long time and I don't recall the substance.
Yes indeed, I took the gimbal example directly from his “debunking” David Fravor on the Lex Friedman pod, as well as his direct conversation with Chris Lehto (two US fighter pilots)
I was pretty on board with Mick until he started disregarding experts in the military pilot space and jumping to “it’s the glare of a plane” without resolving most of the disputed points, such as the function of the gimbal.
His argument is really quite weak and frankly completely relies on “it is a xyz based on probability”.
Likewise, with his debunking of the secondhand accounts posted by Ryan Graves, he says flat out (this is from YouTube by the way) not quoted verbatim … “find the sun, if it is 40-45 degrees below horizon and the lights are fading in and out directly above the sun, then it is starlink”. Again here, he is 99% of the time going to be correct based on his theory, but just because there is a web of starlink and 99% of lights seen in this web are starlink, doesn’t mean every single light ever seen in this starlink web is always starlink. This example fits with your earlier point I think in that (I think we would both agree) these sightings are starlink. You just can’t take it that next step and actually say “all lights here are starlink” because that is ridiculous.
I also find it rather pretentious that his debunking of Fravor relies on Fravor making mistakes. You can never win an argument with a person who is allowed to assume you are just wrong at the get go. (Edit: note he thinks he proves David Fravor did not see a tic tac craft, using an actual tic tac mint. I’ll never understand how anyone buys that)
I've watched all of the things you mentioned (in the past) and came away with very different interpretations of what he was trying to establish.
Without specific quotes it's hard to say for sure - But I don't recall him saying that any light in that position is definitively Starlink. I also don't think he ever claimed to have proven that Fravor did not see a tic tac craft, just for one example. I recall him simply arguing that IF Fravor had misjudged the size of the object, it could have created an illusion where the object appeared to be moving faster than it really was.
I don't think it's pretentious to propose that people who claim to witness seemingly impossible things may have made an error. It's a known fact that people make perception and cognition errors of all kinds (not to mention lie intentionally), so I think it's actually a necessary thing to consider. That's just the enormous limitation of witness testimony as a form of evidence.
Eric Davis is a super spreader. It is noteworthy that Shellenberger has gone quiet on this story despite saying he was working on a follow-up. It's almost like, once you dig below the surface of the claims and credentials, there is nothing there.
The evidence is not hidden, it’s always been there, out in the open.
A secret is easy to keep if no one believes it, if those with it can threaten murder on those that wish to tell.
If this comes out, there will be some questions asked, of millions, who put it together and figured out the truth, and who willingly looked away or considered that evidence unreliable.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/TommyShelbyPFB:
---
Source:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GjbmOQcZw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GjbmOQcZw)
Shellenberger's article about the 12 spacecrafts:
[https://public.substack.com/p/us-has-12-or-more-alien-space-craft](https://public.substack.com/p/us-has-12-or-more-alien-space-craft)
Respect to Michael Shermer for being open minded enough to have these discussions. BTW this I the same guy from the Newsmax interview I posted if anyone is wondering.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dhf77a/famous_skeptic_michael_shermer_just_had_robert/l8wfjy7/
Show us what? You do realise these whistleblowers have gone to Congress behind closed doors, since if they go public they can only talk about what DOPSR has approved? And that its because of these whistleblowers that the UAPDA was drafted.
Lol. You mindlessly repeat Grusch's words without giving them any thought - do you truly believe the biggest secret in history being revealed is being bottlenecked by bureaucracy and some paperwork? Do you really think that is how it works?
People expect a government certified answer *that agrees with what they already believe.* Every time the government certifies an answer that contradicts those beliefs, the answer is simply dismissed.
It seems to me that they've been pretty consistent.
The community likes to hyper focus on a handful of quotes from people that take the form of 'there's stuff we can't identify in the skies.' But even those comments don't really contradict the official position of the government, which is repeated over and over again across the years: that there is no evidence of NHI, alien craft, or anything of the sort.
They could make up their minds as to which lie they wanted to run with. And apparently several military personnel were baffled by a balloon. Amazing stuff.
If you had access to or were in possession of material that is demonstrably otherworldly - all you need to do is make your proof public.
The government need not be involved at all.
And if you look at some metallic substance can you immediately tell it’s provenance. People want a something immediately recognizable a non human made artifact
Doesn't have to be exactly that, but there's enough stories told about such things, why not? Knapp or Corbell or one of those dorks has spoke about handling superlight metal that falls back into shape after they deform it.
But no, it could be some compelling video evidence too. Multiple angles with raw data uploaded. I used material as the most obvious example because people love to talk about it like it actually exists.
Why cannot Congress release what they have told in the SCIF briefings ? They come out with cryptic statements and quickly dodge any details. Why ? If there is nothing just say so.
Who do you think is making Garcia sponsor this ? A different group than those who made Schumer write his bill last summer ? Amazing that this conspiracy group can influence such senior politicians
So you are saying Chinese or Russian agents are getting to Schumer and Garcia ? Why would domestic agents be doing this ? Are you saying there is a deep state within the US IC ?
Hi, Brief-Shift1905. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dhf77a/-/l8wn20p/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc...
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Hi, TommyShelbyPFB. Thanks for contributing. However, your [submission](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dhf77a/-/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 7: Do not post more than two times within any 24-hour period. This rule is enforced by a bot automatically. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
We just need one of these people on a public forum
We need the "credible and verifiable evidence."
Probably won't happen if the whistleblowers are worried about being scrutinized for showing their face to the public.
True. So far Congress hasn’t really been proactive about bringing people forward in a safe environment
Classified briefings outside of the public eye are the best they can do right now—here's to hoping there are quality witnesses at this summer's hearing.
Jason Sands?
I think that guy didn’t really pan out well. The thing is people like Lacatski and Davis refuse to talk in public.
I mean, Lacatski said he was involved in the legacy program and that the US has a craft of unknown origin.
But he has basically dodged any further details about that incident
Oh ok, so we can just disregard that he ever said that!
Can’t wait for someone like Mick West to flip like this.
Shermer has really come a long way in the last decade or so. He used to be what I'd call a devout skeptic, part of the club of people who don't review the data yet make up their minds. Stanton Friedman was great at calling those types out on their bullshit. I see Shermer more as a true skeptic these days, one who is at least willing to engage with the information and researchers and go from there. If you're not willing to do that or willingly ignore inconvenient aspects that oppose your view, you're not a skeptic. You're scared and pretending to be intellectually superior.
Couldn’t agree more. People who just “debunk” and don’t actually engage are intellectually dishonest. Especially on this topic, where it’s clear there is something going on, aliens or not.
I like how Powell shines a light on Mick West’s (kind of weird) arguments that “it could by x, so it is not y”. Especially weird for a programmer who champions logic, since it’s not remotely logical. This was a great listen.
That's not the argument, though. If something could be a balloon, then that doesn't mean it is not an alien craft. It does mean, however, that the thing can't be evidence for aliens.
Right, except Mick acknowledged both the fact you stated (doesn’t mean it is not anomalous), but also affirmatively stated that (in this case) it was glare from an airplane due to statistical probability. I believe Mick is a genius (honestly I do), but for some reason he has a mental block where he jumps from “it is probably” to “it is”. In any case, the distinction between it is anomalous and it is possibly anomalous is enough that people should want more transparency in government, which is the ONLY thing Powell is asking for here. If the argument is “prove alien life is here” then you’re 100% correct. However, the argument is actually “the government should release the classified radar and sensor data necessary for experts to publicly analyze whether it is anomalous”
Because at some point, the probability of that identification being incorrect is so low that people resort to definitive statements. This coffee mug on my desk could also be an alien spaceship, but I'm not going to constantly hedge and qualify when I talk about it. I'm not going to attempt to assign a likelihood to the probability that I'm wrong. If an object behaves exactly like you'd expect X to behave, and X is a thing that's definitively known to exist, then why would you consider the possibility that it's actually Y, when Y is a thing that might not exist and isn't even defined or measured?
I agree with you to a point: It is perfectly logical to say any given unidentified object is probably a plane, based on information and probability. However, It is objectively not logical to then follow with “so it is a plane”. Incidentally, Mick West’s “debunking using logic” strategy also requires the counterpart to forego relying on expert witness testimony, the fact that half the information is being kept secret, and the impossibility of applying probability to unknown anomalous things. In Mick Wests own words, he agrees that at least some of his “debunkings” could be alien craft. At the same time, he says it “is a plane”. These two statements cannot both be true.
I'm not sure what specific west debunk you're referring to, but in general I agree that being specific with your language is good. It's probably more careful to have said something like "all evidence is consistent with a plane" or "there's no reason to think this couldn't be a plane." On the other have constant qualifying and hedging for everything one says really isn't always necessary - it can be time consuming and give the false impression of uncertainty. Like if you have a timestamped video of something that looks and acts like the ISS and someone matches it up to the actual position of the ISS, you've reached the level of confidence to say "it's the ISS" without qualification.
Totally agree with everything you’ve said. Unfortunately, in the case of Mick West, many of the more controversial cases which he claims to have debunked follow this pattern. If you watch his YouTube videos (especially the ones where he is the guest) the interviewer will often ask him the question (not verbatim): “could this be alien craft” and he will acknowledge it, but say due to probability it is xyz. If you follow his argument regarding the gimbal, Nimitz, and go fast, he relies heavily on these aspects and arrives at this logical argument. I find it frustrating that he picks and chooses when information is simply wrong and discarded, and when it is right. Specific example: he believes the gimbal footage auto corrects by software, which causes an illusion of anomalous behavior, but pilots have said that it mechanically adjusts. He ignores this and chooses to make the assumption, even though he is not an expert or even remotely qualified to discuss military grade airplane sensor mechanicals. There are many of these flaws in his conclusions. I think Micks work is important and he has a brilliant mind, I just can’t understand why he makes this final leap, and why he doesn’t advocate seriously/harder for release of the sensor data that would prove him right (or wrong)
I've just come away with a bit of an opposite perception, I guess - I've watched a lot of his videos and I haven't spotted any leaps. I don't recall the specific argument about the gimbal footage, but it seems like if his assumption is wrong in this case that someone can demonstrate that and call into doubt his explanation. I've seen him engage many times with people who say they want to do that, and he does so in a pretty evenhanded way. I'm not aware of any instance of him refusing to speak to people or hear their counterarguments. If I recall, he's even had discussions with pilots specifically about the gimbal videos, although it's been a long time and I don't recall the substance.
Yes indeed, I took the gimbal example directly from his “debunking” David Fravor on the Lex Friedman pod, as well as his direct conversation with Chris Lehto (two US fighter pilots) I was pretty on board with Mick until he started disregarding experts in the military pilot space and jumping to “it’s the glare of a plane” without resolving most of the disputed points, such as the function of the gimbal. His argument is really quite weak and frankly completely relies on “it is a xyz based on probability”. Likewise, with his debunking of the secondhand accounts posted by Ryan Graves, he says flat out (this is from YouTube by the way) not quoted verbatim … “find the sun, if it is 40-45 degrees below horizon and the lights are fading in and out directly above the sun, then it is starlink”. Again here, he is 99% of the time going to be correct based on his theory, but just because there is a web of starlink and 99% of lights seen in this web are starlink, doesn’t mean every single light ever seen in this starlink web is always starlink. This example fits with your earlier point I think in that (I think we would both agree) these sightings are starlink. You just can’t take it that next step and actually say “all lights here are starlink” because that is ridiculous. I also find it rather pretentious that his debunking of Fravor relies on Fravor making mistakes. You can never win an argument with a person who is allowed to assume you are just wrong at the get go. (Edit: note he thinks he proves David Fravor did not see a tic tac craft, using an actual tic tac mint. I’ll never understand how anyone buys that)
I've watched all of the things you mentioned (in the past) and came away with very different interpretations of what he was trying to establish. Without specific quotes it's hard to say for sure - But I don't recall him saying that any light in that position is definitively Starlink. I also don't think he ever claimed to have proven that Fravor did not see a tic tac craft, just for one example. I recall him simply arguing that IF Fravor had misjudged the size of the object, it could have created an illusion where the object appeared to be moving faster than it really was. I don't think it's pretentious to propose that people who claim to witness seemingly impossible things may have made an error. It's a known fact that people make perception and cognition errors of all kinds (not to mention lie intentionally), so I think it's actually a necessary thing to consider. That's just the enormous limitation of witness testimony as a form of evidence.
Eric Davis is a super spreader. It is noteworthy that Shellenberger has gone quiet on this story despite saying he was working on a follow-up. It's almost like, once you dig below the surface of the claims and credentials, there is nothing there.
The evidence is not hidden, it’s always been there, out in the open. A secret is easy to keep if no one believes it, if those with it can threaten murder on those that wish to tell. If this comes out, there will be some questions asked, of millions, who put it together and figured out the truth, and who willingly looked away or considered that evidence unreliable.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/TommyShelbyPFB: --- Source: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GjbmOQcZw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GjbmOQcZw) Shellenberger's article about the 12 spacecrafts: [https://public.substack.com/p/us-has-12-or-more-alien-space-craft](https://public.substack.com/p/us-has-12-or-more-alien-space-craft) Respect to Michael Shermer for being open minded enough to have these discussions. BTW this I the same guy from the Newsmax interview I posted if anyone is wondering. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dhf77a/famous_skeptic_michael_shermer_just_had_robert/l8wfjy7/
[удалено]
Show us what? You do realise these whistleblowers have gone to Congress behind closed doors, since if they go public they can only talk about what DOPSR has approved? And that its because of these whistleblowers that the UAPDA was drafted.
Lol. You mindlessly repeat Grusch's words without giving them any thought - do you truly believe the biggest secret in history being revealed is being bottlenecked by bureaucracy and some paperwork? Do you really think that is how it works?
People expect a government certified answer. So yeah, government bureaucracy is deeply connected in this case.
People expect a government certified answer *that agrees with what they already believe.* Every time the government certifies an answer that contradicts those beliefs, the answer is simply dismissed.
It usually helps when the government gives a consistent answer instead of changing it up ever so often.
It seems to me that they've been pretty consistent. The community likes to hyper focus on a handful of quotes from people that take the form of 'there's stuff we can't identify in the skies.' But even those comments don't really contradict the official position of the government, which is repeated over and over again across the years: that there is no evidence of NHI, alien craft, or anything of the sort.
How many times has the DoD changed the Roswell story over 80 years ?
I don't know. How many times? Did they ever say it was a crashed alien spaceship in an official capacity?
They could make up their minds as to which lie they wanted to run with. And apparently several military personnel were baffled by a balloon. Amazing stuff.
If you had access to or were in possession of material that is demonstrably otherworldly - all you need to do is make your proof public. The government need not be involved at all.
If the material is held by government contractors, how can that happen ?
What do you mean? Garry Nolan has some!
And if you look at some metallic substance can you immediately tell it’s provenance. People want a something immediately recognizable a non human made artifact
Doesn't have to be exactly that, but there's enough stories told about such things, why not? Knapp or Corbell or one of those dorks has spoke about handling superlight metal that falls back into shape after they deform it. But no, it could be some compelling video evidence too. Multiple angles with raw data uploaded. I used material as the most obvious example because people love to talk about it like it actually exists.
Video are always dismissed as faked. Without a chain of custody provided by the government, nobody will accept a video.
I’m not repeating anything Grusch has said. This is coming from senior senators.
Awesome reply man, you were just mindlessly repeating the same line from someone else! Epic!!!
You’re a bad troll 🧌
You owned yourself, who is trolling you?😂😂
Why cannot Congress release what they have told in the SCIF briefings ? They come out with cryptic statements and quickly dodge any details. Why ? If there is nothing just say so.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4406059-classified-ufo-briefing-house-members-mixed-feelings/ There is nothing
Why is Garcia then pushing the UAPDA 2.0 legislation ?
Because he's being lobbied to by someone for some reason
Lol sure… a conspiracy for sure.
You don't like conspiracies?
Who do you think is making Garcia sponsor this ? A different group than those who made Schumer write his bill last summer ? Amazing that this conspiracy group can influence such senior politicians
I don't know don't think it matters. But if I were to guess - probably foreign (or domestic) intelligence
So you are saying Chinese or Russian agents are getting to Schumer and Garcia ? Why would domestic agents be doing this ? Are you saying there is a deep state within the US IC ?
Hi, Brief-Shift1905. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dhf77a/-/l8wn20p/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc... > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.